Text Size

-

+

reset

Back on Capitol Hill, Democrats launched a concerted effort to marginalize Cantor, casting him as the lone outlier in a room of deal-cutters.

Democrats have for months been looking for a villain to fill the role that Newt Gingrich played during the 1995 government shutdown. Now, they believe they have one in Cantor, the 48-year-old conservative with a flair for hard-ball negotiating tactics and sharp rhetoric.

McConnell is warning his party of the political risks of default and proposing an exit strategy from the talks; Boehner initially was open to a major $4 trillion deficit-cutting compromise. That leaves Cantor, Democrats believe, as the obvious face of a government default should one occur.

Reid took the unusual step of calling out Cantor by name on the Senate floor, saying his conduct has been “childish” and he has “shown he shouldn’t be at the table.”

A deal cannot be reached “unless he changes,” Reid said Thursday afternoon of Cantor.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sharp-elbowed partisan himself, piled on: “There is really only one person who has not made any concessions of all the eight, nine in that room – and that’s Majority Leader Cantor. He is basically standing in the way and it’s a shame.”

Cantor spokeswoman Laena Fallon chalked up the Democrats’ comments to political theatrics.

“It’s not surprising that Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer don’t want to cut spending and wants to raise taxes with so many Americans out of work,” Fallon said. “This isn’t a question about personalities — Eric, President Obama, Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer — it’s about doing what is right for the country and trying to find a productive solution that finally demonstrates Washington is serious about America’s fiscal health.”

Despite their differences at times, Boehner defended Cantor at a press conference Thursday, saying “we have been in this fight together.”

To say that “the role he has played in these meetings has been anything less than helpful is just wrong.”

The tone of the debate has veered sharply more negative since last Thursday, the first major meeting at the White House among the principle negotiators. At the meeting, Obama went around the room and asked which of the members could support a “grand bargain” on the deficit, but Cantor voiced concern because of the possibility of tax increases. Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl said he agreed with Cantor.

Once the meeting ended, Reid went up to Cantor and said he appreciated the Republican leader’s honesty, according to a Republican official.

“Eric, I don’t know you very well, in fact I don’t know you very well at all, but I just want to thank you for being the only one to have the guts to be honest in this room,” the Republican recalled Reid saying. “A lot of us come in here and say a lot of things, but I really appreciate what you did today.”

Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson said the majority leader actually said, “at least you’re being honest” as a way to advise him to put aside ideology to reach reasonable compromises.

Jentleson said that Reid had “high hopes that Cantor would rise to the occasion” but he’s “disappointed” that the majority leader has shown “neither that courage nor that ability” and has been a “disruptive force” during the negotiations.

Cantor’s aides dismiss such attacks. Cantor says he walked out of the talks with Biden because of concerns that Democrats were ready to raise taxes. He’s had more to contribute during the White House sessions because of his role in the negotiations with Biden, a Cantor aide said.

So Obama doesn't think closed doors in DC is secretive enough. Now he thinks that the discussions should be even more secluded. Great transparency.

BTW where are the Democrat media interviews convincing the American people that their plan is the best. Where are Schumer & Reid & Pelosi & Hoyer talking up the details of the Dem/Obama plan? All I see are quotes demonizing any Republican plan or Republican lawmakers but no one defending the Dem plan...or even able to explain in detail what the Dem plan is.

How dare Obama threaten that social security checks many not go out if he doesn't get his way. The money is there and if they don't go out because this child is throwing a tantrum, know Americans that it will be his decision, his choice and not a lack of funds. Threatening is the Chicago political way and it's sickening.

“The only thing I hope [President Obama] doesn’t ask us to do is to go to Camp David,” said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday. “That goes beyond the pale.”

?

Is there any other comments from the ex-Speaker on why such an event is so horrible?

Will it cut into her fund raising schedule?

I personally do not think Obama should be serving as a negotiator in these issues.....Indeed, passing the STATUTORY debt ceiling increase is a purely Congressional action currently and until it passes both houses, which it seems is becoming less likely by the day under Obama's cool leadership, he then gets involved by either signing it or vetoing it.

I think barack Obama should be telling us all, especially the financial markets, the specific plans on how the USA will not default on paying the bond interests as well as continuing necessary operations of the US Federal Government....He is the chief executive afterall.

I know those mundane requirements of PRESIDENT bore the professor and politicians who would rather be out making speeches, schmoozing big donors and using the pomp and circumstance of the office to his personal and professional pleasure....Ah but the real work of a CEO is needed here....it is crisis time and I think we need to know what happens after August 2....Specifics instead of veiled threats of cutting off the elderly, soldiers in the field and allowing our terrific bond rating to be threatened.

I agree, why run off to talk about something Obama should have talked on, about and tackled a long time ago. He is wanting to gain leverage with it being on "his turf" because we, the People, see the White House, as our House and only occupied by an elected official at our say so...and He, Obama, should remember this...

However, moving the talks to Camp David is ridiculous and if I were the House and Senate, I would strongly suspect an ambush.

No, stay in DC and slug it out. However, I will close with this statement, Obama is using fear as a weapon that he will make sure that the Social Security checks and military pay do not go out on his say so and he is blaming the Republican majority. That is a terrorist threat to starve people which is tantamount to genocide and to put our military as risk...yeah, I say Obama would use any tactic to win....ALL HE HAS TO DO IS AGREE TO IS DEBT REDUCTION AND STOP THE OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING AND LOOTING OF OUR ECONOMY AND NOT INCREASE TAXES ON POSSIBLE JOB CREATORS...WHY IS THAT SO HARD FOR HIM TO AGREE TO....IT IS REASONABLE....

How dare Obama threaten that social security checks many not go out if he doesn't get his way.

bink: Jul. 14, 2011 - 12:21 PM EST

The money is there

I guess you don't know about this:

A constitutional hole in the U.S. debt ceiling

The president's prerogative may supersede the limit.

July 13, 2011

By Stephen J. Marmon

On Aug. 4, $90,785,744,400 in U.S. Treasury bills will come due. If the federal debt ceiling hasn't been raised by then, the government will have only $16 billion available to redeem them. That's a full-blown default.

Can someone explain to me why they'd be going to Camp David in the first place, and what the big deal is about going there? Is there some secret torture room that everyone's afraid of or something? Because from the articles I've read, it almost sounds like going to Camp David will somehow result in them being magically coerced into something they don't want to do.

On Aug. 4, $90,785,744,400 in U.S. Treasury bills will come due. If the federal debt ceiling hasn't been raised by then, the government will have only $16 billion available to redeem them. That's a full-blown default.

They don't have to redeem them. They just have to sell the same amount of new debt (most likely at higher interest rates). It happens weekly and has been for a long time. They just cannot issue more than has already been issued. But then that doesn't fit the liberal viewpoint.

And what kind of brat refuses to put their offers in writing? Or says "Don't call my bluff"? Or calls the other side names without putting forth details of their own plan? Juvenile would be overly generous as an adjective.